If you and the rest of your Gaggle of Kommandos weren't so eager to make it about ME, you wouldn't step in much of anything with both feet. As usual, your eagerness to look for some opening to mischaracterize me as some kind of vigilante or lawless paramilitary goon backfired on you because you wanted to make it personal and show me in some negative way. Stick with what you know -- and you don't know a damn thing about me. You can either choose the safe route of dealing with the topic, or keep making it personal by doing what you've been doing and increase your risk of being dead wrong most of the time.

What my personal role is/was in the American society has nothing to do with my gun ownership or the exercising of my right to own a gun -- or choosing not to own a gun. My role had nothing to do with my choice of firearms AFTER I returned to the university. I still had the same weapons -- including the Mini 14 -- and I kept it for the same reasons.

As previously stated, the judicial system in the US also backs me up on my choices to exercise my rights.

If you and the rest of your Gaggle of Kommandos weren't so eager to make it about ME, you wouldn't step in much of anything with both feet. As usual, your eagerness to look for some opening to mischaracterize me as some kind of vigilante or lawless paramilitary goon backfired on you because you wanted to make it personal and show me in some negative way. Stick with what you know -- and you don't know a damn thing about me. You can either choose the safe route of dealing with the topic, or keep making it personal by doing what you've been doing and increase your risk of being dead wrong most of the time.

What my personal role is/was in the American society has nothing to do with my gun ownership or the exercising of my right to own a gun -- or choosing not to own a gun. My role had nothing to do with my choice of firearms AFTER I returned to the university. I still had the same weapons -- including the Mini 14 -- and I kept it for the same reasons.

As previously stated, the judicial system in the US also backs me up on my choices to exercise my rights.

I categorically deny that it's about 'mischaracterizing' you or that I try to show you 'in some negative way'.

You consistently manage that feat totally unassisted every time you post.

I categorically deny that it's about 'mischaracterizing' you or that I try to show you 'in some negative way'.

You don't decide when anything is dealt with and over unless it applies only to you.

You can deny all you want -- categorically or any other way. The nice thing is that readers CAN READ and comprehend and see that your categorical denial is bunk.

Here's just one example.

I owned one many years ago. Sold it after having it less than a year. Found it to be a less than durable weapon and too long to use in confined spaces -- like swinging it from the back seat to the front seat and exiting. I opted instead for the Ruger Mini 14 -- shorter, easier to use in confined spaces, much more durable physically and shoots the same caliber round.

You categorically made the leap from my statement about the weapon being physically weak and unwieldy to this:

I was interested to read how you opined that the AR-15 is less portable, swinging it off the back seat, jumping out of vehicles and use in confined spaces. I thought yes, that could be a liability in a firefight in The Helmand. Then I thought about you finding a parking space in front of your favorite Target or Walmart and swinging around to grab something off the back seat... and the moment was lost. No, I'm not suggesting that you would start shooting it for the hell of it... but the concept of needing to be always alert to the risk of concentrated enemy fire while simply picking up the groceries in middle America would be really funny if it wasn't so grotesque.

If you were sincerely interested in my statement about the AR-15, as you claimed (see quote above), you could have asked why it was necessary for me to be able to perform with the weapon in that manner. Instead, that active imagination and kommando nature of yours took over and tried to categorically turn me into some wild-eyed vigilante or some goon paramilitary member -- when my role was the complete opposite. You even provided an imaginary public setting where innocent people could have been harmed by me through reckless ownership and use of a firearm.

In your eyes none of that may be negative, but you characterized your feelings about that phony, imaginary and made-up scenario as "grotesque." I guess a "grotesque" idea of something -- even if phony and made up -- isn't negative in your eyes either. Regardless, it's certainly not a positive portrayal, and it was all created through that active imagination and that kommando nature of yours.

Yeah, you can deny it all you want -- categorically and any other way.

You found what you thought was one of those "openings" you talk about, and then used your very active imagination to embellish it in a way that only a kommando could do.

That's just one example.

Your categorical denial is bunk, your statement is fraudulent, and readers can read the thread for themselves. You even admitted to stepping into it with both feet. So how can you categorically deny what you've admitted? That's another great leap.

And don't misunderstand me. I'm not crying about it. I'm pointing out once again the hilarity of it all and how childish, insincere and immature you and your Gaggle have been throughout this thread and some others. Some of you never got past the junior high school maturity level -- categorically.